1,516
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 13:
Line 13: + + + +
Talk:Exact sciences (view source)
Revision as of 14:41, February 26, 2009
, 14:41, February 26, 2009→Meteorology: new section
:I agree, as well as [[baraminology]]. [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|<sup>Hello!</sup>]] 23:05, 21 February 2009 (EST)
:I agree, as well as [[baraminology]]. [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|<sup>Hello!</sup>]] 23:05, 21 February 2009 (EST)
::I'd agree with both of the above. If aspects of "exact" science the the validity of radiological dating is to be called into question on CP, then I don't see how anyone can consider creation science or baraminology to be "exact" sciences either. They don't have to be dismissed out of hand, but they certainly aren't as exact as mathematics or basic chemistry. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 23:38, 21 February 2009 (EST)
::I'd agree with both of the above. If aspects of "exact" science the the validity of radiological dating is to be called into question on CP, then I don't see how anyone can consider creation science or baraminology to be "exact" sciences either. They don't have to be dismissed out of hand, but they certainly aren't as exact as mathematics or basic chemistry. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 23:38, 21 February 2009 (EST)
== Meteorology ==
I'm not sure that this belongs in the "fuzzy" category, despite the qualification that this refers to global warming theories. Meteorology involves a lot of hard science in terms of data collection, record keeping and analysis, and this part of it is good science despite the inability of it to be used to predict future weather with perfect accuracy. Trying to shoehorn this in as fuzzy science to criticize global warming theory is a stretch. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 09:41, 26 February 2009 (EST)